The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

iq250/iq260 residual value

strok

Member
Hi, I got a good trade offer on a digital back from my dealer.
Both iq250 and Iq260 come with the same upgrade price
I'm a landscape photographer.
Both DBs have some limitations.
Having a full frame sensor is a huge advantage but a bad performance at high iso is a big disadvantage.
I'm having a hard time to choose.
85% of shots I will probably be taking at a base ISO, but it would be great not to have limitations when it comes to windy conditions or shooting Aurora lights at night. There's always an option to have a second camera (D810) for extra 15% of situations, but you have to have an extra set of glass as well.
Which DB do you think will have a better residual value lets say in 3 years?
Regards,
Evgueni
 
Last edited:

dougpeterson

Workshop Member
I'd do a shoot with each of those backs and decide which one suits you better.

Residual value is worth considering but not nearly as important as "when you're using it" value.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Even as a landscape shooter you will always run into wind and having a higher ISO back will be helpful.
 

Zerimar

Member
I've been going through the same dilemma and decided to lean towards the 250 more for the 14 stops of range and high ISO ability. Plus the battery life is much better among a few other things.

I think that it will be nice to have the medium format be usable for all of my landscape work, because it was lacking for night images which I am quite partial to.
 

strok

Member
Hi Doug,
I've tested both, and non of two gives me 100% of what I want.
My perfect back will be an IQ250 (full frame).
 

strok

Member
I've been going through the same dilemma and decided to lean towards the 250 more for the 14 stops of range and high ISO ability. Plus the battery life is much better among a few other things.

I think that it will be nice to have the medium format be usable for all of my landscape work, because it was lacking for night images which I am quite partial to.
Rick, Do you find a crop factor as an issue for your work?
 

jagsiva

Active member
I would look at lenses/bodies etc. first then decide on the back. if you're going to use a tech cam and wides for landscape, the 260 would be my choice.

Live view would be sweet, but you can work around it. You cannot work around not having a high-quality WA lens.

But as Doug says, I would go out and shoot both with the lenses you intend on using, and look at the files. A dealer close to you is even better than Live View :)
 

gazwas

Active member
Hi Doug,
I've tested both, and non of two gives me 100% of what I want.
My perfect back will be an IQ250 (full frame).
I think you answered your own question - stick to what you've got if neither fulfil your requirements and stick the money in the bank until the right one is released.

The release of next Phase full frame CMOS back will kill the value of the IQ250 IMO

The last round of upgrade offers from Phase were bases around P back users but were very poor if you had a newer generation back. MFD backs loose excruciating amounts of money used so residual value is low and not worth worrying too much about. MFD is a case of keep it and enjoy it or suffer burnt fingers.
 

strok

Member
No, I don't have a tech camera.
My Glass: SK28, SK55, SK80, PO150 (ordering 40-80, will sell 80,55)
I'm not a wide angle shooter but sometimes you really need it.
The Iq250 kinda killing the purpose of having the SK28mm.
 

strok

Member
PS
was very impressed by IQ260 at base ISO (not in long exposure mode) @20sec -30sec performance. Day and night compare to p65+
 

f8orbust

Active member
No two ways about it - IMHO - in 3+ years the IQ250 will have the greater residual value.

What that will be I've no real idea, but looking at the used market today you can see that 180s struggle to make >$17k (privately) used (new ~ $45k, i.e. >60% depreciation) so that gives you an idea of the sort of hit you might take should you not stay on P1s upgrade path and decide to sell the back yourself.

The IQ260 is a fantastic bit of kit - would love to own one - but in 3 years time, when CMOS MFDBs have been around for a few years, and full-frame CMOS is probably available, who will want the 260? The advantages that CMOS backs bring are huge - clean high ISO, true live view, long exposure, low power consumption (longer battery life), video etc. And that's now, imagine what they'll be capable of in 3 years time. In comparison, CCD development is s-l-o-w - it simply doesn't benefit from all the innovation on the back of smaller format systems development (that all use CMOS). I can imagine an enthusiast landscape photographer shooting on a tech cam still interested in a CCD back in 3 years time, particularly if CMOS MF sensors still don't shift well, but for how much? Hasselblad's (CMOS) CFV-50c is available today for <$9k, what will that (or it's full-frame equivalent) be available for in 3 years time? That could be what you're up against.

If you play the numbers game, it's painful whatever way you cut it. Doug's advice is the best, think of the value of the back today in terms of the pleasure it brings and, if you're a working pro, the money it makes.
 

Zerimar

Member
Rick, Do you find a crop factor as an issue for your work?
No.

This is because of setups like the RRS Multi row panorama kit, you can stitch to get wider shots (except with long exposures) quite easily, and also greatly increase the resolution. Thus limiting the need of UWA lenses. This solution is not ideal to most, but it provides wider angle coverage on the crop back.

The higher ISO is the major selling point for me. I shoot a lot of fashion work here in Los Angeles and find myself using my 35mm kit more often than the P45+ because of a few factors:

The screen on my current back is terrible. Tethering is not always a possibility, and I feel that the screen on the back is not sure enough to review the images that I am shooting for a client. I don't like that risk.

The ISO limitation. When the light starts to fade, or you're in less than ideal conditions, After ISO 200 you are out of luck. I personally don't think ISO 400 on a P45+ is usable for client work.

I love long exposures. The 260 has to be pushed to ISO 160 and is not as good at long exposures as the P45+/IQ250

This is all subjective and based on the user, but for my work personally the IQ250 would be better. I say this because I would be able to use the camera for more of my jobs than I currently have (it only comes out when in studio and tethered) plus I gain the ability to shoot long exposures and night shots quite well.
 

strok

Member
70% of my shots are PANO shots, but sometimes you have no choice and you need an UWA lens. Probably the IQ250 is the best option for me but what upsets me the most, that by getting an IQ250 I don't feel like buying a real MF sensor. 44mm not much bigger then 35mm, I'm buying a bottom of the line (first available in line-up) sensor for a price of 20 of 35mm, and one of the competitions sells the same sensor under 8k (including complete camera)
Lets say if the price of IQ250 would be around 15k it would be an easy decision.
 
A little late to the discussion here, but from the cheap seats (i.e. not my money) the choice is easy. I don't think the subject matter is the question, I think the camera is the question. If the main camera is a tech cam that will be used with tilts and shifts, go IQ260. If the main camera is a SLR (DF, DF+, H4x, etc.), go IQ250 unless you really dislike the crop (I really dislike the crop). The IQ250 on a DF+ feels like a real camera, nothing like the older, slower CCD backs on a DF. Now, if you feel like the cropped sensors lose something compared with full 645, or if you are using the same back on SLR and tech cam, that's where the decision gets trickier.

In time, I think we will look at the IQ260 and IQ250 much as we now look back at the P25 and P30 (maybe P40 is a better example). One is unquestionably the more advanced back, but the other has something intangible that keeps it relevant.
 

MGrayson

Subscriber and Workshop Member
I went with the IQ140. It was a lot cheaper than the 160, let me use smaller lenses, and made perfect sense.

I hate the crop, and wish I'd been more extravagant.

--Matt
 

Paul2660

Well-known member
If not for the "crop" I would have ordered a 250 on day one, and taken a loss on my 260, with the trade in price I received at the time from my dealer/Phase One. I was attempting to trade in a 8 month old 260. Result was a huge loss, but that's another discussion, or maybe not based on the original post title.

Lets, see. I had a back that listed for 39K, or actually 41 K as I remember, and the amount to to upgrade to a 250, with a new 5 year value add 21K. I believe the 250 was @35K or so at the time, may have been 34K.

You asked about residual value, there is a good example of a less than 1 year old back and worth less than half price. At least in a "trade-in" offering.

The 250 has everything I need for my style of shooting, but the crop is just too much for me as I work in close. If I was out west, I might still have done it.

Looking back, it's probably best I did not jump to the 250 after I recovered from the "upgrade" trade-in loss price. I shoot a tech camera 100% of the time, and there are some issues with the 250 and movements. May not be as bad as first thought, but still color cast (mainly red in a blue sky) seems hard to totally correct.

Everyone is looking for the "next" thing, i.e. full frame CMOS, but if the price point-trade in stays in the same range as what I was given back in March of this year, it will still be a battle to get there.

Paul
 

PeterL

Member
I currently have the IQ140, and I've not regretted I got this. I can use the excellent SK 24XL on my Alpa TC and it's plenty wide for me. I do not know how this lens performs on the IQ250/150/Credo50, but I would hope it would be ok, obviously with no movements, but I can live with that. If you stitch, there is absolutely no difference between an IQ160 sensor compared to the IQ140. I stitch very well with the SK35XL with my STC, but I realize I would need a RK 40 or so if I upgrade to the IQ250/150. Of course if you really need 80Mpix you need to go with that kind of back, but 40-50MPix is fine for me. This phobia about a "cropped" sensor I just don't get, unless you're using a DF camera with a cropped viewfinder, but for an Alpa/Arca/Cambo I really do not see the problem. You get the sweet spot of all the lenses with the 44x33 sensor.

Cheers, -Peter
 

Paul2660

Well-known member
If you you stitch with a full frame back you will have more image area than a cropped sensor. I thought at first I could use the 250 and a cropped sensor to get approximately the same amount of image by stitching greater amounts like 25mm instead of 15mm.

Looking at this post it's clear that the full frame back still can capture more overall parts of the scene when compared to a cropped sensor which is shifted a greater amount.

http://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium-format-systems-digital-backs/52000-lcc-23hr-35hr-40hr-iq250.html

In this post rise was used instead of shift but it shows the same result. Both with a 23mm amd 40mm

Also this test shows that on extreme movements past 15mm with the 250 sensor you get color cast that cannot totally be removed. Notice the blue sky on
the 25mm rise shots.

I believe in a standard 3 part stitch of 15mm L , C and 15mm R the full frame sensor will capture a larger overall image with the camera back vertical or horizontal.

Paul
 
Top